The following is an excellent letter to the South Dakota Chief Justice
prepared by an independent South Dakota businessman who is concerned about
where the state and nation are going:

August 7, 2006

David E.
Gilbertson, Chief Justice

South Dakota
Supreme Court

500 East
Capitol Avenue

Pierre, South Dakota 57501

Re:
Your Attendance at the South Dakota State Bar

`
Board of Commissioners, December 8, 2005 Meeting

Dear Chief
Justice Gilbertson:

Let me
introduce myself to you. I am Eugene Paulson, an independent South Dakota
businessman concerned about where our state, our nation, is going. Too
often today, too many matters end up in the Courts, with judges having the
final say-so on the matter.

We don’t think
our Founding Fathers could have ever dreamt that America would become the
litigious, lawsuit-warring, sue-at-the-drop- of-a-hat, place we have
become. Clearly, we don’t agree with that, nor with the continuing amassing
of power by the local, state and federal governments. We believe it is
clear that, at a certain point, the more power government gets, the less
liberty We The People have.

So as more and
more of these issues end up in the Courts with judges, many not elected,
deciding the finality of the matter, we thought not only that we should have
a truly independent judiciary, but more importantly that we should have, and
ensure that we have, an accountable judiciary --a judiciary that has
integrity; a judiciary that is beyond reproach. Clearly, the doctrine of
absolute judicial immunity is contrary to the above; thus my/our sponsoring
of Amendment E.

Which brings
up the following matter. Enclosed find a copy of the South Dakota State Bar
Board of Commissioners, December 8, 2005 Meeting “Minutes.” There it is
stated that you were in attendance at that meeting. It further states that
“The purpose of the meeting was to consider a draft campaign plan prepared
by Tom Barnett to respond to the J.A.I.L initiative.” It further states that
you “commented briefly” at the meeting. It further states that “Barnett
[Tom Barnett, State Bar Secretary-Treasurer] informed the Commissioners that
the campaign would be very expensive, perhaps costing as much as
$1-million.”

Chief Justice Gilbertson
August 7, 2006 Page two

Regarding an
independent judiciary and a fair election, you wrote in Hoogestraat v.
Barnett (199 ) 199 S.D. 104; 583 N.W. 421, which concerned the
issue of whether the South Dakota Attorney General had exceeded his
authority in a ballot statement he had prepared for an initiative measure:

“At stake here is the impartiality of the voting booth.
We fully join in the Court’s opinion. We write only to stress a few
additional points germane to the decision on this expedited case.

“While in a generic sense, the Attorney General is the
lawyer for the citizens of South Dakota in that he is a public official who
is paid with taxpayers’ funds, like all public officials his duties are
defined by the South Dakota Constitution and our statutes. We do not read
his general duties as set forth in SDCL 1-11-1 or any code section
(exclusive of the disputed 12-13-9) to authorize the giving of a legal
opinion on the face of the ballot. Thus we are presented with the narrow
question now before us as to whether the disputed language may be authorized
by SDCL 12-13-9. For the reasons set forth in the Court’s opinion, we
conclude it is not. This is not to say that the Legislature may not
authorize such action if it chooses to do so in the future, only that it has
not done so at the present time.

“… we are cited to decisions from other courts which have
upheld limitations on corporate farming in varying degrees. See
Omaha Nat. Bank v. Spire, 389 NW2d 269 (Neb 1986); MSM Farms v. Spire, 927
F.2d 330 (8th Cir 1991); Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 326 US
207, 66 S.Ct 61, 90 L.Ed 6 (1945). ‘It is up to
the people of the State of Nebraska, not the courts, to weigh the evidence
and decide on the wisdom and utility of the measures adopted through the
initiative and referendum process.’ MSM Farms,
927 F.2d at 333. Therefore, we leave any questions as to the
constitutionality of Amendment E for such time as it is properly brought
before us to determine that issue.

“This is one of those rare cases when the Court must act
to protect the integrity of the ballot box. We can take no side in the
debate between corporate and family farm interests, but we must ensure
that the debate remains outside the voting booth.

“In this case, the Attorney General’s statement that Proposed
Constitutional Amendment E ‘could result in successful lawsuits against the
State of South Dakota, under the U.S. Constitution’ goes beyond the
narrow authority granted by SDCL 12-13-9 and clearly exceeds the
purpose of a ballot explanation. It is not a statement of how Proposed
Constitutional

Chief
Justice Gilbertson August 7, 2006 Page three

Amendment E would change existing law. Rather it is

conjecture as to possible consequences of a change in
existing law. As such, it has no place in a ballot explanation appearing on
the general election ballot. It is purely a statement of opinion which is
more appropriate to the political campaign and education process leading
up to the election.”

You stated
there: “… We [the court] can take no side in the debate …”
Yet your attendance at the December 8, 2005 State Bar campaign meeting seems
quite at odds with what you wrote in Hoogestraat.

Likewise,
Chief Justice Gilbertson, your attendance at the December 8, 2005 State Bar
campaign meeting seems quite at odds with the following language that
appears on the official website of the South Dakota Unified Judicial System
– which you head.

Judicial Discipline Information – General Information

South Dakota judges are governed by high standards of conduct
which define proper and improper conduct for judges in both their professional
and personal capacities. These standards are set forth in the South Dakota Code
of Judicial Conduct. SDCL ch.16-2, Appx. Under those standards of conduct
judges must:

1.uphold
the integrity and independence of the judiciary;

2.avoid
impropriety and appearance of impropriety in all of their
activities;

3.perform
the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently;

4.conduct
their extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with
judicial obligations; and

5.refrain
from inappropriate political activities.

Chief Justice
Gilbertson, clearly your attendance at the December 8, 2005 State Bar
campaign meeting is a matter of public concern. (See Landmark
Communications, Inc., v.
Virginia,
435 U.S. 829 (1978), where Chief Justice Burger wrote for a unanimous Court
at 838: “… The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges
are of the utmost public concern.”)

Therefore,
Chief Justice Gilbertson, as a matter of public concern, could you please be
kind enough to answer the following questions for me, all of the backers of
Amendment E, and the citizens and voters of the state of South Dakota. ....

Is it true that you attended the
State Bar December 8. 2005 meeting? Yes_______

No_______

Chief Justice
Gilbertson August 7, 2006 Page four

A. If you
did attend the meeting, why were you there?

In what capacity did you attend that
meeting?

A. As the
Chief Justice? Yes____ No____

B. A
private citizen? Yes____ No_____

C. Or some
other capacity? If some other, please explain.

Under what authority did you
attend that meeting?

How did you come to attend that
meeting?

Was your appearance solicited by
others? Yes_____ No______

A. If so,
by whom?

B. When?

C. Is
there any written record of such?
Yes____ No_____

D. If so,
would you provide copies of such? Yes____ No____

E. If not,
will you identify such, so that it could be formally requested?

F. Was this event put on your official calendar? Yes____ No_____

G. If not,
why not?

Chief Justice Gilbertson
August 7, 2006 Page five

H. If so, how is it listed?

I. If you were not solicited by others to attend the meeting, did you
(or your staff on your request) initiate to be there on your own?

Yes____ No____

J. Are there any writings regarding any discussions with
others concerning your attendance of this meeting?
Yes___ No ___

K. If not, why not?

L. If so, would you provide copies of such?
Yes____ No____

Did you in fact “comment
briefly” at the meeting? Yes____ No____

If so, what in fact did you state?
(Please give the time amount your actual

comments took
and provide in detail what you stated)

Is there in fact any recording
or writing of what you stated at the meeting?

(Audio,
your notes, minutes, etc.) Yes____ No____

If there is not any recording or
writing, why?

Chief
Justice Gilbertson August 7, 2006 Page six

10. If there is such a recording or writing, will you provide us
with a copy?

Yes_____ No_____

11. How long were you in attendance at the December 8, 2005
meeting?

12. Do you believe your attendance at this December 8, 2005
meeting, provided the public with any appearance of impropriety? Yes___ No____

13. Do you believe your attendance at this December 8, 2005
meeting, showed the public that the judiciary is not as independent as it
claims?

Yes___ No___

14. Did your attendance at this December 8, 2005 meeting violate
any Judicial Canons of Ethics? Yes____ No____ (If so, please identify which ones
and state how such was violated.)

15. Since you have been the Chief Justice have you ever attended
any other State Bar Board of Commissioners meetings? Yes____ No____ (If so,
could you identify each meeting date and its purpose/topic.)

Chief Justice
Gilbertson August 7, 2006 Page seven

16. Did you attend any State Bar Board of Commissioners meetings
as an associate justice of the South Dakota Supreme Court? Yes___
No____(If so, could you please identify each meeting date and its
purpose/topic.)

17. Have you attended any other meetings, since the December 8,
2005 meeting, concerning the campaign to respond to the J.A.I.L. initiative?

Yes____ No___

18. If so, identify such meetings. Please provide the date,
location, who attended and the specific agenda, purpose or topic of such
meeting(s).

19. You are the head of the Unified South Dakota Judicial System
and in total control of it. Do you believe
that, in the event of passage of Amendment E in November, the Judges under your
control will be unable to obey the law? Yes_____ No_____

20. If
No, why not?

21. If Yes,
then what is the problem with Amendment E?

Chief Justice
Gilbertson August 7, 2006 Page eight

22. The State
Bar, or at least its executives and some of its members, seem to believe
that they have some reason (1 Million dollars' worth) to oppose Amendment E
to the point where they are willing to lie to the press about its content
and implications. Could you please explain to me what you believe the
various individuals, who have made comments in the local papers which are at
the best misleading, are so concerned about.

* * *

I am sorry we
have had to write this letter, Chief Justice Gilbertson. But like you, we
(the People of South Dakota) want to ensure that “It is up to the people
…, not the courts, to weigh the evidence and decide on the wisdom and
utility of the measures adopted through the initiative and referendum
process” and we want to ensure that those in government officially do
not “take no side in the debate” on Amendment E. Moreover, as
stated by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Landmark “The
operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are of the
utmost public concern.”

Please provide
your answers in writing within the next ten (10) days. We thank you for your
anticipated cooperation, Mr. Chief Justice. ... Also if you have any
questions or seek further information, please feel free to call or write.

I have
enclosed copies of some news articles and some e-mails regarding
Brandenburg's, obviously politically motivated, (news?) article.

In my opinion
these documents reflect the opinion of a great number of the people in this
entire country. I would think that you would be in favor of Amendment E
with the hope that it would do what you are obviously unable to do with this
State's legal system.

I believe that
we will look back on this vote with the proud realization that South Dakota
was the starting place for the saving of our country.

A
constitutional republic, like the Founders intended this country to be, will
not be sustainable if we abandon our Constitution at the whim of political
majorities. We have hundreds of laws in this state that are
unconstitutional that have been passed because someone with political or
financial clout wanted it done.